Replies

Maybe, but the government has no motive for covering this up that I can think of.

Well, it doesn't have to be a sinister motive, you know. What's "the motive" for the US press prissy-footing around about Pearl's beheading? Maybe the NY Post finally said something yesterday, but that's all I've seen. Maybe they were trying to go easy on the family, (like they did with the Marine dragging in Mogadishu. -not!)

MOTIVE? The simple benevolent intention of maintaining calm in the flying public, and the public in general? The govm't could not afford to have such a gaping security breakdown frighten off the pax, possibly killing many airlines and causing general economic chaos.
MOTIVE? Intelligence Control. National Security secret. At the time, who was attacking us? We didn't know. The attackers did. How would the attackers get feedback on how the plan was executed? Via reports like this. It might've seemed like a good idea to suppress this info at the time to confuse followon attack planning.

Those two alone seem like very plausable, non-sinister, non-tinfoil motives for a government "cover-up" or more like "sweep-under the rug."

Nevertheless, if this was a short term coverup to protect us from ourselves, then the government has truly become the nanny of the baby sheeple.